Indicate
by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes [ ]
No [X]

Indicate
by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes [ ]
No [X]

Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports),
and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes [X] No [ ]

Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every
Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this
chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such
files). Yes [X] No [ ]

Indicate
by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not
be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference
in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. Yes [ ] No [X]

Indicate
by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller
reporting company. See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller
reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large
accelerated filer

[ ]

Accelerated
filer

[ ]

Non-accelerated
filer
(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

[ ]

Smaller
reporting company

[X]

Indicate
by check mark whether the Registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes [ ] No
[X]

The
aggregate market value of voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant was approximately $0 as of December 31, 2017 (computed
by reference to the fact that no last sale price of a share of the registrant’s Common Stock on that date was reported by
any securities exchange or public securities trading market.)

There
were 32,706,761 shares outstanding of the registrant’s Common Stock as of April 17, 2018.

Imaging3,
Inc. (the “Company”) (OTCQB: IGNG) is a development stage medical device company. The Company has developed a portable,
proprietary, X-ray imaging technology designed to produce 3D images in real time. The Company’s devices are designed to
operate flexibly to serve varying imaging applications with less radiation exposure in a lower cost, lower weight and easily transportable
format that does not require specialized power sources when compared to currently available 3D imaging devices. The Company’s
lead device, the Dominion Smartscan, for which the Company plans to submit a 510K application with the FDA in mid-2018, will be
portable and will operate on conventional 110V power sources. While the Company’s primary focus is on applications for the
healthcare industry (human and veterinary), there are many potential non-healthcare related applications for the Company’s
technology, including agricultural and industrial parts inspection and security screening.

BUSINESS

Overview

Imaging3
Inc. is a medical device company that has developed a patented fluoroscopic imaging device, the Dominion Smartscan™ (“Dominion”)
that can produce real-time 2D, 3D and CT-like slice-through images in one second of imaging time and without the radiation associated
with other much more costly and time-consuming technologies. The Company is focused on gaining FDA marketing authorization via
the 510K process, further developing the final product, expanding of the existing patent estate, and building the management team
necessary to execute these steps towards successful commercialization. Currently, efforts are focused exclusively on the US market.
The Dominion system is not currently available for sale in any market.

Near-term,
the Dominion is an easily transportable imaging system which allows for basic 2D X-rays (e.g., imaging of bone and soft tissue)
and can do so in one second or less of imaging time using radiation levels at or below equivalent X-ray imaging devices. Unlike
other current technologies, from one second of imaging time the Dominion can also produce precise 3D models and 3D CT-like slice
through imaging, which we believe will offer healthcare providers unusually valuable information about their patient, [settings
where this is not normally available with current technologies.] In the future, the use of the Dominion to provide real-time “live”
(continuous) 3D imaging offers the potential to use the device to guide minimally invasive surgery (MIS).

The
Company believes that the Dominion has potential uses where a flexible X-ray/CT-like image is desired without the need for a special
room, where real-time “live” imaging would be beneficial, and in populations where traditional higher radiation dosing
modalities must be avoided. Examples of these applications could be in clinics or communities that cannot justify the multi-million
dollar expense of a CT device, in clinics or environments such as pediatrics where a one-second 2D or 3D image of an injury would
be beneficial, in transport-dependent military combat and disaster management applications, in developing countries, and ultimately,
where minimally invasive surgery is practiced.

The
Dominion system utilizes an O-ring design, where the X-ray image capture technology circles the target area. During 180 degrees
of travel, the system typically takes 180 images. The data from these images are processed through a proprietary algorithm and
software to produce a 3D model of the volume that was imaged, which can then be sliced and analyzed from any angle to provide
images and information that maximize value to the healthcare provider and patient. This process is completed fast enough that
the 3D image can be delivered effectively in real-time.

In
June 2010, the Company submitted a 510(k) application to the FDA for the Dominion system. In March 2012, the FDA notified the
Company that the Dominion Smartscan system did not meet the required criteria for substantial equivalence based upon the live
surgical guidance performance claims requested and the data and information submitted by the Company in the 510(k) submission.
Following interactions with the FDA and an extended period of rebuilding the Company for a re-start, the Company determined that
a new 510(k) application would need to be submitted with more modest initial claims in 2D and 3D fluoroscopy in order to facilitate
an early FDA clearance for the Dominion Smartscan system. The Company has engaged expert regulatory consultants to facilitate
an FDA clearance for the Dominion Smartscan system, to be followed by initial commercialization in the USA.

Pursuant
to the above, in recent years the Company has reduced its workforce, abandoned certain equipment designs, canceled certain contracts,
written down inventory, written off certain patents, completed financial restructuring and successfully emerged from bankruptcy,
as well as completed a multi-year SEC remediation and release process. The Company believes that it is now repositioned with new
leadership and a clear opportunity to achieve its goals for the development and commercialization of the Dominion SmartScan system.

We
believe that future outcomes of minimally invasive surgeries will be enhanced through the combination of the Dominion’s
more advanced tools and imaging functionality, which are designed to: (i) empower the surgical team with improved precision, surgical
guidance options and visualization; (ii) improve patient satisfaction and post-operative recovery; and (iii) provide a cost-effective
imaging system, compared to existing alternatives, for a wide range of clinical applications.

Our
business strategy is to focus on the development and commercialization of the Dominion Smartscan system, through tiered levels
of performance claims, regulatory approvals, and commercialization in an expanding portfolio of application areas.

Market
Overview

Over
the past two decades, fluoroscopic imaging (C-arm devices) has emerged as a lower radiation dosing alternative to CT scans in
minimally invasive surgery applications. In C-arm imaging, two views are necessary to provide orthogonal diagnostic view perspectives.
The process of repositioning the C-arm to generate the two images and their subsequent translation into a 3D image and/or slice
analysis, typically requires seconds or minutes of elapsed time. This makes it impossible to create a “live” real-time
3D image and slice analysis. Additionally, working from just two orthogonal images requires significant extrapolation and consequent
imprecision or error in 3D image reconstruction.

Beyond
the particularly high-value surgical guidance applications, billions of 2D and 3D imaging procedures across a broad range of clinical
applications are now performed each year worldwide. The majority of these imaging procedures continue to be traditional 2D X-rays,
although the value of these procedures is now dwarfed by the value delivered and captured in 3D imaging and slice analysis, and
in live 3D guidance procedures.

While
C-arm surgical guidance imaging has decreased the invasiveness of many previously open surgical procedures, it still has many
limitations. These traditional imaging techniques still require multiple x-rays to achieve the visualization and triangulation
required to provide successful surgical guidance results. Many traditional imaging instruments are relatively rigid instruments
that lack the external articulation required to enhance equipment dexterity in complex tasks. Most x-ray imaging is performed
with two-dimensional (“2D”) visualization of the subject or operative field making the often-important dimension of
depth perception difficult.

A
persistent challenge associated with x-ray imaging is the utilization of cumbersome and tissue-damaging ionizing radiation. The
introduction of lower radiation dosing solutions that achieve equivalent outcomes versus current higher radiation dosing modalities
will always be a compelling additional value proposition in the comparison of imaging technologies.

Despite
its limitations, traditional fluoroscopy remains the prevalent technique in minimally invasive surgery. We believe that the Dominion
device, with its CT-like imaging with lower radiation dosing capabilities, will provide higher value to facilitate adoption by
radiologists and will enhance surgical outcomes over use of traditional imaging methods.

Modern
imaging technologies, including computer-controlled automated slice analyses, have developed as technologies that offer the potential
to improve upon many aspects of the traditional 2D or C-arm 3D x-ray imaging experience. Hundreds of thousands of CT radiological
procedures are now performed each year worldwide, but they remain a small fraction of the total imaging procedures performed.
While initial widespread adoption of imaging was focused on 2D x-ray images, and CT scanning procedures were primarily performed
in high-cost, custom-built rooms, CT scanning has been more recently applied to many other clinical applications, particularly
in general surgery. Despite recent advances, we believe there remain many limitations associated with current fluoroscopic and
CT imaging systems used in connection with minimally invasive surgeries.

Product
Overview

With
the introduction of the Dominion, the Company intends to provide a unique tool to provide access in many non-traditional settings
and to better visualize a wide variety of healthcare related issues and facilitate better-informed decision-making, ranging from
basic 2D X-rays to 3D imaging and slice analyses, and ultimately, to guidance of minimally invasive surgical procedures. In addition
to human medical applications, the Dominion is expected to deliver unique new value in many non-traditional settings for inspection
of foods, industrial parts, and in security screenings.

Current
Product Offering

Dominion
Smartscan system

The
Dominion Smartscan system is a multi-functional imaging system that allows up to 360 images to be obtained from a single 360-degree
orbit of its O-ring design. The Dominion utilizes the same fluoroscopic cone beam X-ray emitter used in some modern fluoroscopic
C-arms, but unlike the two images that are typically utilized from the use of the C-arm, the 3D image generated from the Dominion
system are constructed in real time from approximately 180 images. The Company believes that the additional data provided allows
for more complete, accurate and precise 3D image reconstruction, and does not rely as heavily on the extrapolated volume-filling
of current software solutions based upon two orthogonal images. The Company also believes that the Dominion will deliver its benefits
at a significant cost savings to the healthcare system.

Key
features of the Dominion Smartscan system are:

●

Real-time
imaging: The Dominion Smartscan can provide real-time 3D images, including the ability to provide live continuous real-time
3D imaging.

●

Low
radiation: The system’s fluoroscopic X-ray emitters produce 2D and 3D images, including CT-like slice analyses,
from just one second of imaging time with X-ray power levels flexibly reduced to minimum requirements for each application.

●

Multi-functional:
The Dominion Smartscan is expected to weigh under 150 pounds and to utilize standard 110/120v power sources. The Dominion
unit is envisioned to be mountable within a vehicle or easily wheeled around an office, clinic or hospital.

●

Cost
savings: The Dominion system offers an extremely broad variety of potential applications, without the need for a multi-million
dollar investment in a CT device and custom room installation.

Improved
Throughput for Doctors: Having a low cost, small footprint, easily mobile imaging solution with the ability to produce
CT like images in real time, along with traditional static 2D and 3D images and slice analyses, will help Doctors realize
greater throughput of patients and higher patient satisfaction with faster turnaround of patient results.

Our
current strategy is to focus our resources on FDA clearance and commercialization of the Dominion Smartscan system, initially
for performance claims focusing on 2D and 3D fluoroscopy. Following market introduction of the Dominion and establishment of appropriate
clinical collaborations, an expanding portfolio of application claims will be pursued for higher value applications. After interactions
with the FDA, we have prioritized our short term operational strategy around the finalization and prosecution of an initial 510(k)
application for The Dominion Smartscan system, with the assistance of an expert regulatory consultancy team.

We
believe that:

●

There
are a vast number of urgent/emergency care, sports and other clinical specialty settings, hospitals, combat and emergency
response and other settings in the U.S. and globally where trained medical staff could benefit from and would adopt an easily
transportable, 110V powered, low acquisition and operating cost, rapid 3D imaging and slice analysis system such as the Dominion
Smartscan system;

●

Physicians,
healthcare systems and patients will continue to seek reduced ionizing radiation alternatives for many common imaging needs,
and the Dominion system’s flexibility for minimization of radiation dosing to the functional minimums required for each
imaging task will be an attractive feature;

●

These
same features will prove to be similarly attractive in expanding markets for agricultural and industrial parts inspection,
and security screening.

Marketing

Imaging3
competes in the medical diagnostic imaging market,and
this market continues to grow vigorously in installed equipment base and numbers of procedures performed. This vitality is due
primarily to continual technological improvements that lead to faster and higher-resolution imaging, greater patient safety, and
the provision of these capabilities to a geographically disperse and rapidly growing global population. This has resulted in vigorous
competition to create the most cost-effective diagnostic imaging systems.

According
toa Freedonia Group
study, the medical imaging equipment market in the US is greater than $9.5 billion, and has a projected growth rate greater than
that for overall national healthcare expenditures. Growth will be stimulated by ever increasing utilization in patient procedures
involving diagnostic imaging, partly the result of an aging population and partly reflecting advances in noninvasive surgical
procedures.

Intellectual
Property

We
believe that our intellectual property and expertise is an important competitive resource. We intend to maintain an active program
of intellectual property protection, both to assure that the proprietary technology developed by the Company is appropriately
protected and, where necessary, to assure that there is no infringement of our proprietary technology by competitors.

The
following summarizes our current patent and patent application portfolio.

Patents
and Patent Applications Owned by the Company: The Company holds one United States patent, and it has more than 21 patent amendments
filed in the United States. In each instance, we own all right, title and interest, and no licenses, security interests or other
encumbrances have been granted on such patents and patent applications.

Our
issued patent resulted from filings related to the Dominion Smartscan system. The patent will remain in force until 2024 and we
intend to seek further patent and other intellectual property protection in the United States and internationally, where available
and when appropriate, as we continue our product development efforts.

Our
industry is highly competitive, subject to change and significantly affected by new product introductions and other activities
of industry participants. Many of our competitors have significantly greater financial and human resources than we do and have
established reputations with our target customers, as well as worldwide distribution channels that are well developed and established.

There
are many competitive offerings in the field of radiology imaging. Several companies have launched devices that enable reduced
radiation without real-time 3D imaging. Our imaging competitors include, but are not limited to: Fujifilm, GE, Siemens, Medtronic,
Samsung, Shiimadzu, Carestream, Hitachi, Hologic, Esaote, Toshiba, Striker, Phillips, Ziehm, and OEC.

In
addition to imaging device manufacturer competitors, there are many products and therapies that are designed to reduce the need
for or attractiveness of imaging intervention. These products and therapies may impact the overall volume of imaging procedures
and negatively impact our business.

Our
ability to compete may be affected by the failure to fully educate physicians in the use of our products and products in development,
or by the level of physician expertise. This may have the effect of making our products less attractive. Some medical device companies
are actively engaged in research and development of imaging systems or other medical devices and tools used in minimally invasive
surgery procedures. We cannot predict the basis upon which we will compete with new products marketed by others.

Government
Regulation of our Product Development Activities

The
U.S. government and foreign governments regulate the medical device industry through various agencies, including but not limited
to, the U.S. FDA, which administers the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the “FDCA”). The design, testing, manufacturing,
storage, labeling, distribution, advertising, and marketing of medical devices are subject to extensive regulation by federal,
state and local governmental authorities in the United States, including the FDA, and by similar agencies in other countries,
including the European Union. Any device product that we develop must receive all requisite regulatory approvals or clearances,
as the case may be, before it may be marketed in a particular country.

Device
Development, Marketing Clearance and Approval

Medical
devices are subject to varying levels of pre-market regulatory requirements. The FDA classifies medical devices into one of three
classes: (i) Class I devices are relatively simple and can be manufactured and distributed with general controls; (ii) Class II
devices are somewhat more complex and receive greater scrutiny from the FDA and have heightened regulatory clearance requirements;
and (iii) Class III devices are new, high risk devices, and frequently are permanently implantable or help sustain life and generally
require a Pre-Market Approval (“PMA”) by the FDA.

In
the United States, a company typically can obtain permission to distribute a new medical device in one of two ways. The first
applies to any device that is substantially equivalent to a device first marketed prior to May 1976, or to another device marketed
after that date, but which was substantially equivalent to a pre-May 1976 device. These devices are either Class I or Class II
devices. To obtain FDA clearance to distribute the medical device, a company generally must submit a Section 510(k) notification,
and receive an FDA order finding substantial equivalence to a predicate device (pre-May 1976 device or post-May 1976 device that
was substantially equivalent to a pre-May 1976 device) and permitting commercial distribution of that medical device for its intended
use. A 510(k) notification must provide information supporting a claim of substantial equivalence to a single medical device,
the predicate device. If clinical data from human experience are required to support the 510(k) notification, these data must
be gathered in compliance with investigational device exemption (“IDE”) regulations for investigations performed in
the United States. The 510(k) process is normally used for products of the type that the Company is developing and proposes to
market and sell. The FDA review process for premarket notifications submitted pursuant to Section 510(k) takes, pursuant to statutory
requirements, 90 days, but it can take substantially longer if the FDA has questions regarding the regulatory submission. It is
possible for Section 510(k) clearance procedures to take from six to twenty-four months, depending on the concerns raised by the
FDA and the complexity of the device.

There
is no guarantee that the FDA will “clear” a medical device for marketing, in which case the device cannot be distributed
in the United States. There is also no guarantee that the FDA will deem the applicable device subject to the 510(k) process, as
opposed to the more time-consuming, resource-intensive and challenging PMA process described below. In 2011, the FDA issued a
series of draft guidance documents designed to reform the 510(k) clearance process. Similarly, the Medical Device User Fee Amendments
of 2012 authorized the FDA to collect user fees for the review of certain pre-market submissions received on or after October
1, 2012, including 510(k) notifications.

The
second, more comprehensive, approval process applies to a new device that is not substantially equivalent to a pre-1976 product
or that is to be used in supporting or sustaining life or preventing impairment. These devices are normally Class III devices.
For example, most implantable devices are subject to the approval process as a Class III device. Two steps of FDA approval are
generally required before a company can market a product in the United States that is subject to pre-market approval, as a Class
III device. First, a company must comply with IDE regulations in connection with any human clinical investigation of the device.
These regulations permit a company to undertake a clinical study of a “non-significant risk” device without formal
FDA approval. Prior express FDA approval is required if the device is a significant risk device. Second, the FDA must approve
the company’s PMA application, which contains, among other things, clinical information acquired under the IDE. Additionally,
devices subject to PMA approval may be subject to a panel review to obtain marketing approval and are required to pass a factory
inspection in accordance with the current “good manufacturing practices” standards in order to obtain approval. The
FDA will approve the PMA application if it finds there is reasonable assurance that the device is safe and effective for its intended
use. The PMA process takes substantially longer than the 510(k) process, approximately one to two years or more. However, in some
instances the FDA may find that a device is new and not substantially equivalent to a predicate device but is also not a high
risk device as is generally the case with Class III PMA devices. In these instances FDA may allow a device to be down classified
from Class III to Class I or II. The de novo classification option is an alternate pathway to classify novel devices of low to
moderate risk that had automatically been placed in Class III after receiving a “not substantially equivalent” (“NSE”)
determination in response to a 510(k) notification. The regulations have also been amended to allow a sponsor to submit a de novo
classification request to the FDA for novel low to moderate risk devices without first being required to submit a 510(k) application.
These types of applications are referred to as “Evaluation of Automatic Class III Designation” or “de novo.”
In instances where a device is deemed not substantially equivalent to a Class II predicate device, the candidate device may be
filed as a de novo application which may lead to delays in regulatory decisions by the FDA. FDA review of a de novo application
may lead the FDA to identify the device as either a Class I or II device and worthy of either an exempt or 510(k) regulatory pathway.

We
believe that the Dominion Smartscan system should be approvable as a Class II device for 2D and 3D imaging and slice analysis
applications, and we are in the process of pursuing such a Section 510(k) clearance for the Dominion Smartscan system. Later FDA
submissions are expected to address expanded claims for live real-time 3D surgical guidance imaging applications, and these will
seek to utilize a Class II device 510(k) clearance with suitable comparison to predicate devices. The FDA might find that a 510(k)
submission does not provide the evidence required to prove that the Dominion Smartscan system is substantially equivalent to marketed
Class II devices. If that were to occur, we could be required to undertake the more complex and costly PMA process or perhaps
be considered for a de novo reclassification. For either the 510(k), de novo, or the PMA process, the FDA could require us to
conduct clinical trials, which would take more time, cost more money and pose other risks and uncertainties.

Clinical
studies conducted in the U.S. or used in any U.S. application on an unapproved medical device require approval from the FDA prior
to initiation. Even when a clinical study has been approved by the FDA or deemed approved, the study is subject to factors beyond
a manufacturer’s control, including, but not limited to, the fact that the institutional review board (IRB) at a specified
clinical site might not approve the study, might decline to renew approval, or might suspend or terminate the study before its
completion. There is no assurance that a clinical study at any given site will progress as anticipated. In addition, there can
be no assurance that the clinical study will provide sufficient evidence to assure the FDA that the product is safe and effective,
a prerequisite for FDA approval of a PMA, or substantially equivalent in terms of safety and effectiveness to a predicate device,
a prerequisite for clearance under Section 510(k). Even if the FDA approves or clears a device, it may limit its intended uses
in such a way that manufacturing and distribution of the device may not be commercially feasible.

After
clearance or approval to market is given, the FDA and foreign regulatory agencies, upon the occurrence of certain serious adverse
events, are authorized under various circumstances to withdraw the clearance or approval of the device, or require changes to
a device, its manufacturing process or its labeling or require additional proof that regulatory requirements have been met.

A
manufacturer of a device approved through the PMA process is not permitted to make changes to the device which affect its safety
or effectiveness without first submitting a supplement application to its PMA and obtaining FDA approval for that supplement,
prior to marketing the modified device. In some instances, the FDA may require clinical trials to support a supplement application.
A manufacturer of a device cleared through the 510(k) process must submit an additional premarket notification if it intends to
make a change or modification in the device that could significantly affect the safety or effectiveness of the device, such as
a significant change or modification in design, material, chemical composition, energy source, labeling or manufacturing process.
Any change in the intended uses of a PMA device or a 510(k) device requires an approval supplement or new cleared premarket notification.
Exported devices are subject to the regulatory requirements of each country to which the device is exported, as well as certain
FDA export requirements.

Continuing
FDA Regulation

After
a device is placed on the market, numerous FDA and other regulatory requirements continue to apply. These include:

labeling
regulations, which prohibit the promotion of products for unapproved, i.e. “off label,” uses and impose other
restrictions on labeling;

●

medical
device reporting regulations, which require that manufacturers report to the FDA if their device may have caused or contributed
to a death or serious injury or malfunctioned in a way that would likely cause or contribute to a death or serious injury
if it were to recur;

●

corrections
and removal reporting regulations, which require that manufacturers report to the FDA on field corrections and product recalls
or removals, if undertaken to reduce a risk to health posed by the device or to remedy a violation of the FDCA that may present
a risk to health; and

We
are required to and have registered with the FDA and the International Organization for Standardization (“ISO”) as
medical device manufacturers, and must obtain all necessary permits and licenses to operate our business. As manufacturers, we
and our suppliers are subject to announced and unannounced inspections by the FDA to determine our compliance with the Quality
System Regulation (“QSR”) and other regulations.

In
Europe, we need to comply with the requirements of the Medical Devices Directive (“MDD”) and appropriately affix the
CE Mark on our products to attest to such compliance. To achieve compliance, our products must meet the “Essential Requirements”
of the MDD relating to safety and performance and we must successfully undergo verification of our regulatory compliance, or conformity
assessment, by a notified body selected by us. The level of scrutiny of such assessment depends on the regulatory class of the
product. We are subject to continued surveillance by our notified body and will be required to report any serious adverse incidents
to the appropriate authorities. We also must comply with additional requirements of individual countries in which our products
are marketed. In the European Community, we are required to maintain certain ISO certifications in order to sell products. These
regulations require us or our manufacturers to manufacture products and maintain documents in a prescribed manner with respect
to design, manufacturing, testing, labeling and control activities.

operating
restrictions, partial suspension or total shutdown of production;

●

refusing
our request for 510(k) clearance or premarket approval of new products or modifications to existing products;

●

withdrawing
or suspending clearances or approvals that are already granted;

●

criminal
prosecution; and

●

disgorgement
of profits.

Further,
the levels of revenues and profitability of medical device companies like the Company may be affected by the continuing efforts
of government and third party payers to contain or reduce the costs of health care through various means. For example, in certain
foreign markets, pricing or profitability of products is subject to governmental control. In the United States, there have been,
and we expect that there will continue to be, a number of federal and state proposals to implement similar governmental controls.

Therefore,
we cannot assure you that any of our products will be considered cost effective, or that, following any commercialization of our
products, coverage and reimbursement will be available or sufficient to allow us to manufacture and sell them competitively and
profitably.

Health
Care Regulation

Our
business activities are subject to additional healthcare regulation and enforcement by the federal government and by authorities
in the states and foreign jurisdictions in which we conduct our business. Such laws include, without limitation, state and federal
anti-kickback, fraud and abuse, false claims, privacy and security and physician payment transparency laws. If our operations
are found to be in violation of any of such laws that apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including, without limitation,
civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, exclusion from participation
in federal and state healthcare programs and imprisonment, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business
and our financial results.

In
the United States, there have been, and we expect there to continue to be, a number of legislative and regulatory initiatives,
at both the federal and state government levels, to change the healthcare system in ways that, if approved, could affect our ability
to sell our products profitably. At the current time, our products are not defined as durable medical equipment (“DME”).
Non-DME devices used in imaging systems procedures are normally paid directly by the hospital or health care provider and not
reimbursed separately by third-party payers. Instead, the hospital or health care provider is reimbursed based on the procedure
performed and the inpatient or outpatient stay. As a result, these types of devices are subject to intense price competition that
can place a small manufacturer at a competitive disadvantage as hospitals, ambulatory surgery centers and health care providers
attempt to negotiate lower prices for products such as the ones we develop and sell.

In
March 2010, President Obama signed into law both the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the “Affordable Care Act”)
and the reconciliation law known as Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (the “Reconciliation Act,”) and together
(the “2010 Health Care Reform Legislation”). The constitutionality of the 2010 Health Care Reform Legislation was
confirmed twice by the Supreme Court of the United States. Both Congressional leaders and President Trump have announced plans
to repeal or modify the 2010 Health Care Reform Legislation. At this time the Company is not certain as to the impact of federal
health care legislation on its business.

The
2010 Health Care Reform Legislation subjects manufacturers of medical devices to an excise tax of 2.3% on certain U.S. sales of
medical devices beginning in January 2013. This excise tax was suspended in December 2015 for two years, and we anticipate that
this may be repealed. If eventually implemented, this excise tax will likely increase our expenses in the future.

Further,
the 2010 Health Care Reform Legislation includes the Open Payments Act (formerly referred to as the Physician Payments Sunshine
Act), which, in conjunction with its implementing regulations, requires certain manufacturers of certain drugs, biologics, and
devices that are reimbursed by Medicare, Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program to report annually certain
payments or “transfers of value” provided to physicians and teaching hospitals and to report annually ownership and
investment interests held by physicians and their immediate family members during the preceding calendar year. We have provided
reports under the Open Payments Act to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services since 2014. The failure to report appropriate
data accurately, timely, and completely could subject us to significant financial penalties. Other countries and several states
currently have similar laws and more may enact similar legislation.

International
Regulation and Potential Impact

Through
marketing and acquisition of Dominion Smartscan systems, the Company intends to expand into international markets. Some of these
markets maintain unique regulatory requirements outside of or in addition to those of the U.S. FDA and the European Union. The
Dominion Smartscan system is not CE marked, which would allow us to offer the product for sale in a number of jurisdictions, including
select countries in Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Latin America. Due to the variations in regulatory requirements within territories,
the Company may be required to perform additional safety or clinical testing or fulfill additional agency requirements for specific
territories. The Company may also be required to apply for registration using third parties within those territories and may be
dependent upon the third parties’ successful regulatory processes to file, register and list the product applications and
associated labeling, which could lead to significant investments and resource use. These additional requirements may result in
delays in international registrations and commercialization of our products in certain countries.

Employees

As
of December 31, 2017, we had 4 employees, including 3 full time employees. The Company considers its relationships with its employees
to be good.

Corporate
Information

Imaging3
is a Delaware corporation.

Available
Information

The
Company maintains a website at www.imaging3.com. Our Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, as reviewed and updated on October 26,
2017, is available on our website. Our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form
8-K, and amendments to those reports, filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, are available
free of charge on our website as soon as practicable after electronic filing of such material with, or furnishing it to, the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the SEC”). This information may be read and copied at the Public Reference Room of the
SEC at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington D.C. 20549. The SEC also maintains an internet website that contains reports, proxy statements,
and other information about issuers, like Imaging3 Inc., who file electronically with the SEC. The address of the site is http://www.sec.gov.

We
currently maintain and lease our administrative offices and production facility at 3022 North Hollywood Way, Burbank, California
91505. This facility contains 1,800 square feet of space, and we currently pay rent at a rate of $2.00 per square foot gross.

ITEM
3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Bankruptcy
Closure

On
January 31, 2017, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Central District of California, Neil Bason, granted the Company’s
unopposed motion for entry of final decree and also granted approval of the two stipulations regarding payment of court-approved
fees. As a result, the Imaging3 Chapter 11 proceeding is now closed. The Company is no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the
Bankruptcy Court, and the case cannot be converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding, except that the Judge’s order in its final
paragraph stated that “Notwithstanding the foregoing [order closing the bankruptcy case pursuant to 11 United States Code
Section 350(a)] the bankruptcy case may be reopened on motion as set forth in the Greenberg, Glusker Fee Agreement and/or the
Mentor Fee Agreement and thus the court retains jurisdiction for those purposes and as otherwise provided by law or as contemplated
by the prior orders and proceedings of this court”. Thus, technically, the case could possibly be reopened by either of
those aforementioned creditors. As of the date of filing of this report, the Company is in default of certain terms of the Greenberg,
Glusker and Mentor agreements, however, the Company maintains open and cordial relations with Greenberg, Glusker and Mentor.

Pending
Litigation

On
September 13, 2017 Alpha Capital Anstalt and Brio Capital Master Fund, LTD two minority members of a group of investors in the
Company filed a lawsuit seeking damages and injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, claiming that the Company breached certain Note and Warrant agreements among the parties to the action. The holders
of the majority of the investment involved in the above lawsuit chose not to join in the lawsuit and have informed the Company
that they believe the lawsuit to be baseless. On November 21, 2017, the Court denied the Plaintiff’s request for injunctive
relief against the Company. As a result the case essentially becomes an action for money damages against the Company, which the
Company believes to be without merit and will vigorously defend.

After
meeting all of the filing requirements of the SEC, the Company commenced trading on the OTCQB effective June 22, 2016 under the
new trading symbol “IGNG”. The OTCQB is part of the quality controlled segment of the over-the-counter market, available
only to SEC reporting companies which are current in their regulatory filing requirements and maintain a minimum bid price. The
range of high and low bid quotations for each fiscal quarter within the last two fiscal years was as follows:

Year Ended December 31, 2016

High

Low

First Quarter ended March 31, 2016

$

0.00

$

0.00

Second Quarter ended June 30, 2016

$

4.40

$

1.20

Third Quarter ended September 30, 2016

$

4.80

$

0.60

Fourth Quarter ended December 31, 2016

$

1.00

$

0.20

Year Ended December 31, 2017

High

Low

First Quarter ended March 31, 2017

$

1.00

$

0.20

Second Quarter ended June 30, 2017

$

0.40

$

0.20

Third Quarter ended September 30, 2017

$

0.20

$

0.20

Fourth Quarter ended December 31, 2017

$

0.20

$

0.17

The
above quotations reflect inter-dealer prices, without retail markup, mark-down, or commission and may not necessarily represent
actual transactions.

As
of April 17, 2018, there were approximately 568 record holders of our common stock, not including shares held in
“street name” in brokerage accounts which is unknown. As of December 31, 2017, there were approximately
15,479,454 shares of our common stock outstanding on record.

Dividends

We
have not declared or paid any cash dividends on our common stock and do not anticipate paying dividends for the foreseeable future.

Stock
Option Plan

During
2014, the Board of Directors adopted, and the shareholders approved, the 2014 Stock Option Plan under which a total of 1,811,401
shares of common stock had been reserved for issuance. The 2014 Stock Option Plan will terminate in September 2024.

Stock
Options

As
of December 31, 2017, employees of the Company hold options to purchase 250,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of
$0.50.

Transactions in FY 2017

Quantity

Weighted- Average Exercise Price Per Share

Weighted- Average Remaining Contractual Life

Outstanding, December 31, 2016

650,000

$

0.69

8.25

Granted

Exercised

400,000

0.50

Cancelled/Forfeited

0

Outstanding, December 31, 2017

250,000

$

1.00

7.57

Exercisable, December 31, 2017

250,000

$

1.00

7.57

The
weighted average remaining contractual life of options outstanding issued under the Plan was 7.57 years at December 31, 2017.

ITEM
7. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL AND CONDITION RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

Cautionary
Statements

This
Form 10-K contains financial projections and other “forward-looking statements,” as that term is used in federal securities
laws, about Imaging3, Inc.’s financial condition, results of operations and business. These statements include, among others,
statements concerning the potential for revenues and expenses and other matters that are not historical facts. These statements
may be made expressly in this Form 10-K. You can find many of these statements by looking for words such as “believes,”
“expects,” “anticipates,” “estimates,” or similar expressions used in this Form 10-K. These
forward-looking statements are subject to numerous assumptions, risks and uncertainties that may cause our actual results to be
materially different from any future results expressed or implied by us in those statements. The most important facts that could
prevent us from achieving our stated goals include, but are not limited to, the following:

(a)

volatility
or decline of our stock price;

(b)

potential
fluctuation in quarterly results;

(c)

our
failure to earn revenues or profits;

(d)

inadequate
capital to continue the business and barriers to raising the additional capital or to obtaining the financing needed to implement
our business plans;

litigation
with or legal claims and allegations by outside parties, causing us to incur substantial losses and expenses;

(i)

insufficient
revenues to cover operating costs;

(j)

dilution
in the ownership of the Company through the issuance by us of additional securities and the conversion of outstanding warrants,
notes and other securities;

(k)

failure
to obtain FDA approval for our new medical imaging device, which is still in its prototype stage; and

We
cannot assure that we will be profitable. We may not be able to develop, manage or market our products and services successfully.
We may not be able to attract or retain qualified executives and technology personnel. We may not be able to obtain customers
for our products or services. Our products and services may become obsolete. Government regulation may hinder our business. Additional
dilution in outstanding stock ownership will be incurred due to the issuance or exercise of more shares, warrants and other convertible
securities.

Because
the statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by
the forward-looking statements. We caution you not to place undue reliance on the statements, which speak only as of the date
of this Form 10-K. The cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section should be considered in connection with
any subsequent written or oral forward-looking statements that we or persons acting on our behalf may make. We do not undertake
any obligation to review or confirm analysts’ expectations or estimates or to release publicly any revisions to any forward-looking
statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this Form 10-K or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events.

The
following discussion should be read in conjunction with our financial statements and notes to those statements. In addition to
historical information, the following discussion and other parts of this annual report contain forward-looking information that
involves risks and uncertainties.

On
December 19, 2017 we hired a new CEO and Director to help move the company forward. John Hollister has replaced Dane Medley as
CEO and Mr. Medley is now the President & Principle Executive Officer.

Our
current focus is continuing to enhance and formally hire an engineering group to oversee the hazard analytics required by the
FDA for our 3D medical imaging technology, and to hire the regulatory team and prepare to re-file our application with the FDA
for approval of our 3D medical imaging device.

In
the absence of FDA approval for our medical device, we currently do not and cannot rely upon it as a future source of sales and
revenue. We are subject to the uncertainty of not knowing whether or when our proprietary medical device will be approved and
can be sold. Under those circumstances, management believes that we will continue our current trend of incurring operating losses,
possibly requiring us to raise additional capital or financing from outside sources. We cannot assure that we will be able to
raise sufficient capital or financing to maintain our business while we are incurring operating losses, and we cannot assure that
we will become profitable if our proprietary medical device is approved by the FDA.

Critical
Accounting Policies

Our
discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based upon our financial statements, which have
been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. The preparation of
these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities,
revenues and expenses, and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities. We monitor our estimates on an on-going basis
for changes in facts and circumstances, and material changes in these estimates could occur in the future. Changes in estimates
are recorded in the period in which they become known. We base our estimates on historical experience and other assumptions that
we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances. Actual results may differ from our estimates if past experience or other
assumptions do not turn out to be substantially accurate.

We
have identified the policies below as critical to our business operations and the understanding of our results of operations.

We
measure and recognize compensation expense for all share-based payment awards made to employees and directors based on the grant
date fair values of the awards. For stock option awards to employees with service and/or performance based vesting conditions,
the fair value is estimated using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The value of an award that is ultimately expected to
vest is recognized as expense over the requisite service periods in our statements of operations. Our stock-based awards are comprised
principally of shares issued for services and stock options.

We
account for stock options issued to non-employees in accordance with the guidance for equity-based payments to non-employees.
Stock option awards to non-employees are accounted for at fair value using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. Management
believes that the fair value of stock options is more reliably measured than the fair value of the services received. The fair
value of the unvested portion of the options granted to non-employees is re-measured each period. The resulting increase in value,
if any, is recognized as expense during the period the related services are rendered.

The
Black-Scholes option pricing model requires management to make assumptions and to apply judgment in determining the fair value
of our awards. The most significant assumptions and judgments include estimating the fair value of our underlying stock, the expected
volatility and the expected term of the award. In addition, the recognition of stock-based compensation expense is impacted by
estimated forfeiture rates.

Revenue
Recognition

Revenue
is recognized upon shipment, provided that evidence of an arrangement exists, title and risk of loss have passed to the customer,
fees are fixed or determinable and collection of the related receivable is reasonably assured. Revenue is recorded net of estimated
product returns, which is based upon the Company’s return policy, sales agreements, management estimates of potential future
product returns related to current period revenue, current economic trends, changes in customer composition and historical experience.
The Company accrues for warranty costs, sales returns, and other allowances based on its experience. Generally, the Company extends
credit to its customers and does not require collateral. The Company performs ongoing credit evaluations of its customers and
historic credit losses have been within management’s expectations and has a revenue receivables policy for service and warranty
contracts. Equipment sales usually have a one year warranty of parts and service. After a one year period, the Company contacts
the buyer to initiate the sale of a new warranty contract for one year. Warranty revenues are deferred and recognized on a straight-line
basis over the term of the contract or as services are performed.

Deferred
Revenue

Deferred
revenue consists substantially of amounts received from customers in advance of the Company’s performance service period.
Deferred revenue is recognized as revenue on a systematic basis that is proportionate to the period that the underlying services
are rendered, which in certain arrangements is straight-line over the remaining contractual term or estimated customer life of
an agreement.

Other
Accounting Factors

The
effects of inflation have not had a material impact on our operation, nor are they expected to in the immediate future.

Although
we are unaware of any major seasonal aspect that would have a material effect on the financial condition or results of operation,
the first quarter of each fiscal year is always a financial concern due to slow collections after the holidays.

The
following sets forth selected items from our statements of operations for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016.

Results
of Operations for the Year Ended December 31, 2017 as compared to the Year Ended December 31, 2016.

We
are focusing on our development stage medical device efforts. The legacy related activity was completely wound down in 2017. We
had revenues for the year ended December 31, 2017 of $41,829 as compared to $33,083 for the year ended December 31, 2016, which
represented a 26% increase. .

Our
related cost of goods sold was $14,263 for the year ended December 31, 2017 as compared to $10,247 for the year ended December
31, 2016. This increase was a result of outside labor related to C-Arm repairs. Our gross profit margin for the year ended December
31, 2017 was $27,566 as compared to $22,836 for the year ended December 31, 2016.

Our
general and administrative expenses decreased in 2017 to $1,654,541 from $2,697,527 for the year ended December 31, 2016, a decrease
of 38% primarily as a result of decreased shares issued for services.

Other
income (expense) changed as a result of derivative liability valuation and gains on the extinguishment of debt. Our net income
for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2017 was $2,852,511 as compared to a net loss of $6,761,470 for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2016.

We
expect the trend of operating losses by us to continue into the future at the current or greater rate as we spend money on product
development and marketing. We cannot assure that we can achieve profitability. We do not expect litigation against us to expand
and believe litigation is on a decreasing trend, although we can give no assurances in relation to future litigation.

Liquidity
and Capital Resources

Our
total current assets decreased to $3,594 as of December 31, 2017, from $22,638 as of December 31, 2016. The cash account as of
December 31, 2017 was $3,594 compared to $22,638 as of December 31, 2016.

Our
total current liabilities decreased to $3,711,498 as of December 31, 2017 from $8,170,835 as of December 31, 2016. This decrease
is due in large part to a decrease in derivative liability for this reporting period.

The
cash account as of December 31, 2017 was $3,594 compared to $22,638 as of December 31, 2016. Cash raised through financing activities
was expended primarily on: (i) day-to-day business operations in connection with preparation for our 510K submittal, (ii) administration
of the bankruptcy process, (iii) legal and audit fees, and (iv) payments to creditors required by the court-approved reorganization
plan

During
the year ended December 31, 2017, we used $731,679 of net cash for operating activities, as compared to $616,270 used during the
year ended December 31, 2016. Net cash provided by financing activities during the year ended December 31, 2017 was $712,635,
as compared to $629,400 during the year ended December 31, 2016.

We
expect our working capital requirements in the next twelve months to be met primarily by the proceeds of private placements of
common stock, convertible instruments and other securities to our existing shareholders and other investors. We expect to need
additional working capital from outside sources to cover our anticipated operating deficits and to finance the re-filing of our
application to the FDA for our proprietary 3D medical imaging device. There is no assurance that the Company will be able to raise
sufficient additional capital or financing to continue in business or to effectively execute its business plan.

Going
Concern Qualification

We
have incurred significant losses from operations, and such losses are expected to continue. In their report on our financial statements
as of and for the period ended December 31, 2017, our auditors have expressed substantial doubt about our ability to continue
as a going concern. In addition, we have limited working capital. The foregoing raises substantial doubt about our ability to
continue as a going concern. Management’s plans include seeking additional capital and/or debt financing. We cannot guarantee
that additional capital and/or debt financing will be available when and to the extent required, or that if available it will
be on terms acceptable to us. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this
uncertainty. The “Going Concern Qualification” may make it substantially more difficult for us to raise capital.

We
have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Imaging3, Inc. (the Company) as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the related
statements of operations, stockholders’ deficit, and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December
31, 2017, and the related notes (collectively referred to as the financial statements). In our opinion, the financial statements
present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, and the results
of its operations and its cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31, 2017, in conformity with
accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Explanatory
Paragraph – Going Concern

The
accompanying financial statements have been prepared assuming that the Company will continue as a going concern. As discussed
in Note 8 to the financial statements, the Company has incurred recurring losses from operations and negative cash flows from
operations, resulting in an accumulated deficit of $13.1 million as of December 31, 2017. These conditions raise substantial doubt
about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. Management’s plans with regard to these matters are also
described in Note 8. The financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of this uncertainty.

Basis
for Opinion

These
financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on
the Company’s financial statements based on our audit. We are a public accounting firm registered with the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States) (PCAOB) and are required to be independent with respect to the Company in accordance
with the U.S. federal securities laws and the applicable rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the
PCAOB.

We
conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the PCAOB. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement, whether due to error
or fraud. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial
reporting. As part of our audit, we are required to obtain an understanding of internal control over financial reporting, but
not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.
Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

Our
audit included performing procedures to assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to
error or fraud, and performing procedures that respond to those risks. Such procedures included examining, on a test basis, evidence
regarding the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. Our audit also included evaluating the accounting principles
used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall presentation of the financial statements.
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Common stock and additional paid-in capital authorized 1,000,000,000 shares, no par value and 15,474,454 and 12,201,005 issued and outstanding as of December 31, 2017, and December 31, 2016, respectively

9,417,055

7,829,273

Accumulated deficit

(13,124,959

)

(15,977,470

)

Total stockholders’ deficit

(3,707,904

)

(8,148,197

)

Total liabilities and stockholders’ deficit

$

3,594

$

22,638

*The
financial statements have been retroactively restated to reflect the 1-for-20 reverse-stock split that occurred on March 16, 2018.

The
accompanying notes form an integral part of these financial statements.

Imaging3,
Inc. (the “Company”, “us”, “we”, “Imaging3”) incorporated in the state of California
on October 29, 1993 as Imaging Services, Inc. The Company filed a certificate of amendment of articles of incorporation to change
its name to Imaging3, Inc. on August 20, 2002. In March of 2018, the Company incorporated in Delaware.

The
Company is a development stage medical device company. The Company has developed a portable proprietary imaging technology designed
to produce 3D images in real time. The Company’s devices emit low levels of radiation and require less specialized power
sources than currently available imaging devices. The Company’s lead device, the Dominion Smartscan, for which the Company
plans to submit a 510K application with the FDA in mid-2018, will be portable and works on conventional household current. While
the primary focus is applications for the healthcare industry, there are many potential non-healthcare related uses for the Company’s
technology, including agriculture and security.

2.
BASIS OF PRESENTATION AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES

On
September 13, 2012 (the “Petition Date”), the Company filed a voluntary petition with the federal bankruptcy court
in Los Angeles, California, to enter bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. On or about July 15, 2013,
our Plan of Reorganization was approved by the United States Bankruptcy Court. On July 30, 2013, we emerged from bankruptcy and
continued operations under the terms and conditions of our Bankruptcy Reorganization Plan as it applies to post bankruptcy operations.
For accounting purposes, management deemed the effective date of the Chapter 11 Plan (the “Plan”) to be June 30, 2013.
The Plan adopted by Imaging3, Inc. is a reorganizing plan. Payments under the Plan were made by utilizing existing cash on hand,
borrowings on a secured and unsecured basis, future cash flow, if any, capital raised through the sale of our common stock in
private placements, and by conversion of debt to equity.

Upon
emergence from bankruptcy, Imaging3 adopted fresh-start accounting which resulted in Imaging3 becoming a new entity for financial
reporting purposes. Imaging3 applied fresh start accounting as of July 1, 2013. As a result of the application of fresh start
accounting and the effects of the implementation of the plan of reorganization, the financial statements on or after July 1, 2013
are not comparable with the financial statements prior to that date.

On
March 16, 2018, the Company completed a 1-for-20 reverse stock split. The accompanying financial statements have been retroactively
restated to reflect the 1-for-20 reverse-stock split.

Use
of Estimates

In
preparing financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, management
is required to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the disclosure of
contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements, and revenues and expenses during the reporting period.
Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Cash
and Cash Equivalents

The
Company considers all liquid investments with a maturity of three months or less from the date of purchase that are readily convertible
into cash to be cash equivalents. The Company maintains its cash in bank deposit accounts that may exceed federally insured limits.
The Company has not experienced any losses in such accounts. The Company had no cash equivalents at December 31, 2017 or 2016.

Revenue
is recognized upon shipment, provided that evidence of an arrangement exists, title and risk of loss have passed to the customer,
fees are fixed or determinable and collection of the related receivable is reasonably assured. Revenue is recorded net of estimated
product returns, which is based upon the Company’s return policy, sales agreements, management estimates of potential future
product returns related to current period revenue, current economic trends, changes in customer composition and historical experience.
The Company accrues for warranty costs, sales returns, and other allowances based on its experience. Generally, the Company extends
credit to its customers and does not require collateral. The Company performs ongoing credit evaluations of its customers and
historic credit losses have been within management’s expectations and has a revenue receivables policy for service and warranty
contracts. Warranty revenues are deferred and recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the contract or as services
are performed.

Deferred
Revenue

Deferred
revenue consists substantially of amounts received from customers in advance of the Company’s performance service period.
Deferred revenue is recognized as revenue on a systematic basis that is proportionate to the period that the underlying services
are rendered, which in certain arrangements is straight-line over the remaining contractual term or estimated customer life of
an agreement.

Accounts
Receivable

The
Company’s customer base is geographically dispersed. The Company maintains reserves for potential credit losses on accounts
receivable. Management reviews the composition of accounts receivable and analyzes historical bad debts, customer concentrations,
customer credit worthiness, current economic trends and changes in customer payment patterns to evaluate the adequacy of these
reserves. Reserves are recorded primarily on a specific identification basis.

Impairment
of Long-Lived Assets

Long-lived
assets are reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may
not be recoverable through the estimated undiscounted cash flows expected to result from the use and eventual disposition of the
assets. Whenever any such impairment exists, an impairment loss will be recognized for the amount by which the carrying value
exceeds the fair value.

The
Company tests long-lived assets, including property, plant, equipment and intangible assets subject to periodic amortization,
for recoverability at least annually or more frequently upon the occurrence of an event or when circumstances indicate that the
net carrying amount is greater than its fair value. Assets are grouped and evaluated at the lowest level for their identifiable
cash flows that are largely independent of the cash flows of other groups of assets. The Company considers historical performance
and future estimated results in its evaluation of potential impairment, and then compares the carrying amount of the asset to
the future estimated cash flows expected to result from the use of the asset. If the carrying amount of the asset exceeds estimated
expected undiscounted future cash flows, the Company measures the amount of impairment by comparing the carrying amount of the
asset to its fair value. The estimation of fair value is generally measured by discounting expected future cash flows at the rate
the Company utilizes to evaluate potential investments. The Company estimates fair value based on the information available in
making whatever estimates, judgments and projections are considered necessary.

Basic
and Diluted Net Income Per Share

Basic
net income per share is based upon the weighted average number of common shares outstanding. Diluted net income per share is based
on the assumption that all dilutive convertible shares and stock options were converted or exercised. Dilution is computed by
applying the treasury stock method. Under this method, options and warrants are assumed to be exercised at the beginning of the
period (or at the time of issuance, if later), and as if funds obtained thereby were used to purchase common stock at the average
market price during the period. During 2016, potentially dilutive securities were excluded from the computation of weighted average
shares outstanding-diluted because their effect was anti-dilutive.

Numerator:

Net income attributable to common shareholders, for the year ended December 31, 2017

$

2,852,511

Denominator:

Weighted-average number of common shares outstanding during the period

The
Company generally does not use derivative financial instruments to hedge exposures to cash-flow risks or market-risks that may
affect the fair values of its financial instruments. The Company utilizes various types of financing to fund its business needs,
including convertible notes and warrants and other instruments not indexed to our stock. The Company is required to record its
derivative instruments at their fair value. Changes in the fair value of derivatives are recognized in earnings in accordance
with ASC 815. The Company’s only asset or liability measured at fair value on a recurring basis is its derivative liability
associated with warrants to purchase common stock and convertible notes.

Fair
Value of Financial Instruments

The
fair value accounting standard creates a three-level hierarchy to prioritize the inputs used in the valuation techniques to derive
fair values. The basis for fair value measurements for each level within the hierarchy is described below with Level 1 having
the highest priority and Level 3 having the lowest.

Level
2: Observable prices for similar assets or liabilities in active markets; quoted prices for identical or similar instruments in
markets that are not active; and model-derived valuations in which all significant inputs are observable in the market.

Level
3: Valuations derived from valuation techniques in which one or more significant inputs are unobservable. These unobservable assumptions
reflect estimates of assumptions that market participants would use in pricing the asset or liability. Valuation techniques include
use of option pricing models, discounted cash flow models, and similar techniques.

The
Company had the following assets or liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis at December 31, 2017 and 2016 respectively.

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Total

Derivative Liabilities 2017

$

-

$

-

$

701,347

$

701,347

Derivative Liabilities 2016

$

-

$

-

$

5,532,898

$

5,532,898

Income
Taxes

The
Company accounts for income taxes in accordance with ASC 740-10, “Income Taxes” which requires the recognition of
deferred tax assets and liabilities for the expected future tax consequences of events that have been included in the financial
statements or tax returns.

Under
this method, deferred income taxes are recognized for the tax consequences in future years of differences between the tax bases
of assets and liabilities and their financial reporting amounts at each year-end based on enacted tax laws and statutory tax rates
applicable to the periods in which the differences are expected to affect taxable income. Valuation allowances are established,
when necessary, to reduce deferred tax assets to the amount expected to be realized. The provision for income taxes represents
the tax payable for the period and the change during the period in deferred tax assets and liabilities.

Research
and Development

Costs
and expenses that can be clearly identified as research and development are charged to expense as incurred in accordance with
FASB ASC 730-10. Included in research and development costs are operating costs, facilities, supplies, external services, clinical
trial and manufacturing costs, and overhead directly related to the Company’s research and development operations, as well
as costs to acquire technology licenses.

Recent
Accounting Pronouncements

In
May 2014, FASB issued Accounting Standards Update (ASU) No. 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers. The standard
will eliminate the transaction- and industry-specific revenue recognition guidance under current U.S. GAAP and replace it with
a principle-based approach for determining revenue recognition. ASU 2014-09 is effective for annual and interim periods beginning
after December 15, 2016. Early adoption is not permitted. The revenue recognition standard is required to be applied retrospectively,
including any combination of practical expedients as allowed in the standard. We are evaluating the impact, if any, of the adoption
of ASU 2014-09 to our financial statements and related disclosures. The Company has not yet selected a transition method nor has
it determined the effect of the standard on its ongoing financial reporting.

In
August 2014, the FASB issued ASU 2014-15, Presentation of Financial Statements—Going Concern (Subtopic 205-40): Disclosure
of Uncertainties about an Entity’s Ability to Continue as a Going Concern. ASU 2014-15 changes to the disclosure of
uncertainties about an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern. These changes require an entity’s management
to evaluate whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the entity’s
ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date that financial statements are issued. Substantial doubt
is defined as an indication that it is probable that an entity will be unable to meet its obligations as they become due within
one year after the date that financial statements are issued. If management has concluded that substantial doubt exists, then
the following disclosures should be made in the financial statements: (i) principal conditions or events that raised the substantial
doubt, (ii) management’s evaluation of the significance of those conditions or events in relation to the entity’s
ability to meet its obligations, (iii) management’s plans that alleviated the initial substantial doubt or, if substantial
doubt was not alleviated, management’s plans that are intended to at least mitigate the conditions or events that raise
substantial doubt, and (iv) if the latter in (iii) is disclosed, an explicit statement that there is substantial doubt about the
entity’s ability to continue as a going concern. These changes became effective for the Company for the 2017 annual period.
The adoption of these changes did not have a material impact on the financial statements.

In
February 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842), which supersedes existing guidance on accounting for leases
in “Leases (Topic 840)” and generally requires all leases to be recognized in the consolidated balance sheet. ASU
2016-02 is effective for annual and interim reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2018; early adoption is permitted.
The provisions of ASU 2016-02 are to be applied using a modified retrospective approach. The Company is currently evaluating the
impact of the adoption of this standard on its consolidated financial statements.

In
March 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-09, Improvements to Employee Share-Based Payment Accounting. This ASU affects entities
that issue share-based payment awards to their employees. The ASU is designed to simplify several aspects of accounting for share-based
payment award transactions which include – the income tax consequences, classification of awards as either equity or liabilities,
classification on the statement of cash flows and forfeiture rate calculations. ASU 2016-09 will become effective for the Company
in the first quarter of fiscal 2018. Early adoption is permitted in any interim or annual period. The Company is currently evaluating
the impact of this guidance on its consolidated financial statements.

In
April 2016, the FASB issued AS 2016-10, Revenue from Contracts with Customers (Topic 606), which amends certain aspects of the
Board’s new revenue standard, ASU 2014-09, Revenue from Contracts with Customers. The standard should be adopted concurrently
with adoption of ASU 2014-09 which is effective for annual and interim periods beginning after December 15, 2017. The Company
has not yet selected a transition method nor has it determined the effect of the standard on its ongoing financial reporting.

In
July 2017, the FASB issued ASU 2017-11, Earnings Per Share (Topic 260), Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity (Topic 480) and
Derivatives and Hedging (Topic 815): I. Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Down Round Features; II. Replacement
of the Indefinite Deferral for Mandatorily Redeemable Financial Instruments of Certain Nonpublic Entities and Certain Mandatorily
Redeemable Noncontrolling Interests with a Scope Exception, (ASU 2017-11). Part I of this update addresses the complexity of accounting
for certain financial instruments with down round features. Down round features are features of certain equity-linked instruments
(or embedded features) that result in the strike price being reduced on the basis of the pricing of future equity offerings Current
accounting guidance creates cost and complexity for entities that issue financial instruments (such as warrants and convertible
instruments) with down round features that require fair value measurement of the entire instrument or conversion option. Part
II of this update addresses the difficulty of navigating Topic 480, Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity, because of the existence
of extensive pending content in the FASB Accounting Standards Codification. This pending content is the result of the indefinite
deferral of accounting requirements about mandatorily redeemable financial instruments of certain nonpublic entities and certain
mandatorily redeemable noncontrolling interests. The amendments in Part II of this update do not have an accounting effect. This
ASU is effective for fiscal years, and interim periods within those years, beginning after December 15, 2018. The Company is currently
assessing the potential impact of adopting ASU 2017-11 on its financial statements and related disclosures.

The
Company’s book losses and other timing differences result in a net deferred income tax benefit which is offset by a valuation
allowance for a net deferred asset of zero. The Company has concluded, in accordance with the applicable accounting standards,
that it is more likely than not that the Company may not realize the benefit of all of its deferred tax assets. Accordingly, management
has provided a 100% valuation allowance against its deferred tax assets until such time as management believes that its projections
of future profits as well as expected future tax rates make the realization of these deferred tax assets more-likely-than-not.
Significant judgment is required in the evaluation of deferred tax benefits and differences in future results from our estimates
could result in material differences in the realization of these assets. The Company has recorded a full valuation allowance related
to all of its deferred tax assets. The Company has performed an assessment of positive and negative evidence regarding the realization
of the net deferred tax asset in accordance with FASB ASC 740-10, “Accounting for Income Taxes.” This assessment included
the evaluation of scheduled reversals of deferred tax liabilities, the availability of carry forwards and estimates of projected
future taxable income. The availability of the Company’s net operating loss carry forwards is subject to limitation if there
is a 50% or more change in the ownership of the Company’s stock. The provision for income taxes consists of the state minimum
tax imposed on corporations of $800. The Company has adopted guidance issued by the FASB that clarifies the accounting for uncertainty
in income taxes recognized in an enterprise’s financial statements and prescribes a recognition threshold of more likely
than not and a measurement process for financial statement recognition and measurement of a tax position taken or expected to
be taken in a tax return. In making this assessment, a company must determine whether it is more likely than not that a tax position
will be sustained upon examination, based solely on the technical merits of the position and must assume that the tax position
will be examined by taxing authorities. The Company’s policy is to include interest and penalties related to unrecognized
tax benefits in income tax expense. The Company has not recognized any unrecognized tax benefits and does not have any interest
or penalties related to uncertain tax positions as of December 31, 2016 or December 31, 2017.

As
of December 31, 2017, the Company estimated it had available gross net operating loss (NOL) carry forwards of approximately $12
million, which expire at various dates through 2037.

The
components of the net deferred income taxes at December 31, 2016 and 2017 are summarized below:

December 31, 2016

December 31, 2017

Deferred income tax assets

Net operating loss carry forwards

$

5,962,000

$

3,373,000

Less: valuation allowance

(5,962,000

)

(3,373,000

)

Deferred income tax assets, net

$

-

$

-

The
following is a reconciliation of the provision for income taxes at the U.S. federal income tax rate to the income taxes reflected
in the Statement of Operations:

December 31, 2016

December 31, 2017

Tax expense (benefit) at federal statutory rate

(34

)%

34

%

State tax expense, net of federal tax

(6

)

6

Change in deferred taxes due to statutory rate change

-

51

Changes in valuation allowance

40

(91

)

Effective income tax rate

$

-

$

-

Income
tax expense for the period ended December 31, 2016 and the year ended December 31, 2017 is summarized below.

2016

2017

Current tax expense:

Federal

$

-

$

-

State

800

800

Total current tax expense

$

800

$

800

Deferred tax expense:

Federal

$

-

$

-

State

-

-

Total deferred tax expense, net

$

-

$

-

Tax expense

$

800

$

800

On
December 22, 2017, the U.S. government enacted comprehensive tax reform commonly referred to as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”).
Under FASB Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC 740”), the effects of changes in tax rates and laws are recognized
in the period which the new legislation is enacted. The TCJA makes broad and complex changes to the U.S. tax code, including,
but not limited to: (1) reducing the U.S. federal corporate tax rate from 34% to 21%; (2) changing rules related to uses and limitations
of net operating loss carryforwards created in tax years beginning after December 31, 2017; (3) bonus depreciation that will allow
for full expensing of qualified property; (4) creating a new limitation on deductible interest expense; (5) eliminating the corporate
alternative minimum tax (“AMT”); (6) limitation on the deductibility of executive compensation under Internal Revenue
Code §162(m); and (7) new tax rules related to foreign operations.

On
December 22, 2017, the SEC staff issued Staff Accounting Bulletin (“SAB”) No. 118, which provides guidance on accounting
for the tax effects of TCJA. The purpose of SAB No. 118 was to address any uncertainty or diversity of view in applying ASC Topic
740, Income Taxes in the reporting period in which the TCJA was enacted. SAB No. 118 addresses situations where the accounting
is incomplete for certain income tax effects of the TJCA upon issuance of a company’s financial statements for the reporting
period that includes the enactment date. SAB No. 118 allows for a provisional amount to be recorded if it is a reasonable estimate
of the impact of the TCJA. Additionally, SAB No. 118 allows for a measurement period to finalize the impacts of the TCJA, not
to extend beyond one year from the date of enactment.

In
connection with the initial analysis of the impact of the TCJA, we recorded a provisional decrease in our deferred tax assets
and liabilities with a corresponding adjustment to its valuation allowance. While we are able to make a reasonable estimate of
the impact of the reduction in the corporate rate, it is subject to further analysis, interpretation and clarification of the
TCJA, which could result in changes to this estimate during 2018.

4.
NOTES PAYABLE

During
2015 and 2016, the Company issued promissory notes in the aggregate amount of $942,850 for cash proceeds of $872,500. These notes
bear interest at 5%-10% per annum and several were due on various dates between 2015 and 2017. These notes are secured by substantially
all assets of the Company. The convertible promissory notes are convertible into shares of the Company’s common stock at
a rate equal to $0.01-$0.05 per share (pre reverse stock split), subject to downward adjustments for future equity issuances.
In connection with these convertible promissory notes, the Company issued warrants to purchase 3,325,000 shares of common stock
at an exercise price of $0.20 per share, subject to downward adjustments for future equity issuances. The warrants have a term
of 7 years from the date of issuance. The Company is in default under the terms of these notes.

The
conversion features and warrants are considered derivative liabilities pursuant to ASC 815 and were measured at their grant-date
fair value and recorded as a liability and note discount on the date of issuance. Subsequent changes to the value of the derivative
liabilities are recorded in earnings. As a result, during the ended year ended December 31, 2016, the Company recorded an initial
note discount of $455,000, with an additional immediate charge to interest expense of $749,809 relating to the excess value of
the derivative liabilities over the promissory notes.

On
January 5, 2017 the Company entered into a financing arrangement with five accredited investors (the “Investors”),
whereby amendments to certain convertible note agreements totaling $662,000 were enacted. The amendments to the convertible note
agreements involved (1) extending the maturity dates of the note agreements; and (2) amending the optional conversion provisions
of the original note agreements to now describe an adjustable conversion price based on the completion of a qualified financing
offering. If the cumulative gross proceeds of such offerings exceed $2.5 million, the conversion price will be adjusted automatically
to match the offering’s conversion price and conversion to common shares will occur automatically. If the cumulative gross
proceeds of such offerings remain below $2.5 million, the conversion price adjusts to match the offering conversion price for
the Investors. Should there be an event of default under these amended notes, the Investors will have, in addition to all the
other rights described in that certain Securities Purchaser Agreement, the right, at each Investor’s option, to convert
the notes into common shares at $0.20 per share. The Company and certain Investors agreed to amend its warrant agreements to reduce
the number of warrants by 75% to 831,250. The exercise price remains at $0.20 per share. In consideration of this reduction of
the number of warrants, the Company issued to the Investors new convertible promissory notes in total principal amount of $124,688
in the same form as the original convertible notes described above as amended. These additional convertible notes accrue interest
beginning on January 9, 2017 and are due May 18, 2018.

The
amendment to the notes and warrants were accounted for as an extinguishment of debt, which resulted in a gain on extinguishment
of debt totaling $3,668,776 for the year ended December 31, 2017.

The
Investors agreed to lend the Company up to $200,000, in increments of $50,000, at the Company’s discretion (the “Additional
Loans”), as long as the Original Notes are not in default. These loans will be evidenced by note agreements in the form
of the original notes as amended, described above, with a maturity date of May 18, 2018 and bear interest at 10% per annum. These
notes have a face value of 118.75% of the funds actually advanced and contain conversion features (conversion price of $0.50 per
share) making them derivative instruments. As of December 31, 2017, $150,034 of cash proceeds have been received from this agreement,
for a total principal outstanding of $178,166. The Additional Loans are secured by a UCC filing on the Company’s assets.
In connection with these note agreements, the derivative liability created by these note agreements and warrants totaled $288,057.
The derivative liability in excess of the cash proceeds received was recorded as a charge to interest expense, which totaled $136,835.
In addition, the Company issued 187,500 warrants in the form of the original Warrants as amended granting the Investor the right
to purchase, at $0.20 per share in connection with these notes. These warrants were valued using the black-scholes valuation model
with the assumptions and inputs discussed in note 6.

The
agreement to amend the notes and warrants and to loan additional monies to the Company, as described above, was dependent on the
two officers of the Company—Chief Executive Officer Dane Medley and Chief Financial Officer Xavier Aguilera—agreeing
to restate their respective employment agreement, which they both have done.

On
January 10, 2017, certain note holders converted notes to common shares. The total principal and accrued interest balance converted
amounted to $196,797 along with $234,578 of derivative liability associated with conversion features that were settled upon conversion.
The conversion resulted in the issuance of 431,375 common shares. The fair market value of the common shares on the date of conversion
totaled $431,375.

On
May 25, 2017 the Company completed the sale of $500,000 of Convertible Promissory Notes (the “Notes”) to two accredited
investors (the “Investors”) that are due May 23, 2018 (the “Maturity Date”). After transaction costs,
the company netted $425,000 from the sale of the Notes. These Notes bear interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the Maturity
Date and may be redeemed by the Company for 125% of face value within 90 days of issuance and at 135% of face value from 91 days
after issuance and before 180 days after issuance. Any amount of principal or interest on these notes which is not paid when due
shall bear interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the due date thereof until the same is paid. If the Notes are not repaid
by the end of this period, any balance due is convertible—at the option of the note holders—into common stock at 60%
of the lowest closing price for the prior 20 trading days. In connection with the sale of the Notes, the Investors received a
commitment fee totaling 900,000 shares valued at $180,000, and the holders of a majority of the principal amount of the Company’s
notes outstanding at May 18, 2017 (the “Prior Notes”) executed, as of that date, an Omnibus Amendment that enabled
the transaction by (i) extending the maturity date of these Prior Notes to May 18, 2018 and (ii) restricting the rights of all
the holders of the Prior Notes, including their right to convert until certain conditions are met. In addition, the holders of
these Prior Notes were relieved of their obligation to provide the final note tranche of $50,000. In connection with these notes,
the Company recorded note discounts totaling $648,750 and an immediate charge to interest of $411,725 related to the excess value
of the conversion feature derivative over the carrying value of the notes.

Amortization
of note discounts amounted to $449,281 during the year ended December 31, 2017 and $349,000 for the year ended December 31, 2016.

5.
STOCKHOLDERS’ EQUITY

Preferred
Stock

Dane
Medley relinquished these voting shares during the first quarter ended March 31, 2017 for consideration of $60,000, which has
not yet been paid and is included in accounts payable at December 31, 2017.

Common
Stock

The
Company is authorized to issue 1,000,000,000 shares of no par value common stock.

During
the year ended December 31, 2016, the Company issued 2,663,185 shares of common stock, 2,084,250 shares related to services valued
at $1,903,050, 225,200 shares were issued for cash proceeds of $166,900, and 353,735 shares related to a conversion of notes payable
at $0.20 per share.

During
the year ended December 31, 2017 the Company issued a total of 7,500 shares of common stock for cash in the amount of $7,000 and
2,541,500 shares were issued for services rendered valued at $648,300. In addition, the Company raised $130,600 of capital related
to shares of common stock, however these shares were not issued as of December 31, 2017 and are presented as a subscription payable
on the accompanying balance sheet.

As
of December 31, 2017, there were approximately 568 record holders of our common stock, not including shares held in “street
name” in brokerage accounts which is unknown. As of December 31, 2017, there were 15,474,454 shares of our common stock
outstanding on record.

Stock
Option Plan

During
2014, the Board of Directors adopted, and the shareholders approved, the 2014 Stock Option Plan under which a total of 27,000,000
shares of common stock had been reserved for issuance. The Stock Option Plan will terminate in September 2024.

As
of December 31, 2017, employees of the Company hold options to purchase 250,000 shares of common stock at an exercise price of
$0.50. On September 15, 2017, two officers exercised their 400,000 options at a cost of $200,000, by offsetting and reducing their
deferred salary and other amounts owed to them by the Company.

6.
WARRANTS

Following
is a summary of warrants outstanding at December 31, 2017:

Number of

Warrants

Exercise Price

Expiration Date

541,362

$

0.00002

July 2023

25,000

$

0.20

April 2022

312,500

$

0.20

August 2022

287,500

$

0.20

April 2023

125,000

$

0.20

May 2023

81,250

$

0.20

August 2023

2,800,000

$

0.40

May 2022

187,500

$

0.20

January 2024

Effective
May 1, 2017, the Board of Directors of the Company authorized the issuance of 2,800,000 warrants to purchase 2,800,000 shares
of the Company’s common stock at an exercise price of $0.40 per share for a period of five years from the date of issuance
to the officers of the Company. These warrants were fully-vested upon grant and as such, an expense was recognized upon grant.
The fair value of the warrants was calculated using a Black-Scholes model and was estimated to be $194,956. The significant assumptions
used in the calculations were as follows:

Term

5.0 years

Dividend Yield

0

%

Risk-free rate

1.84

%

Volatility

60

%

7.
DERIVATIVE LIABILITIES

The
Company’s only asset or liability measured at fair value on a recurring basis was its derivative liability associated with
warrants to purchase common stock and the conversion features embedded in convertible promissory notes.

In
connection with financing transactions, the Company issued warrants to purchase common stock and convertible promissory notes.
These instruments included provisions that could result in a reduced exercise price based on specified full-ratchet anti-dilution
provisions. The “reset” provisions were triggered in the event the Company subsequently issued common stock, stock
warrants, stock options or convertible debt with a stock price, exercise price or conversion price lower than contractually specified
amounts. Upon triggering the “reset” provisions, the exercise / conversion price of the instrument will be reduced.
Accordingly, pursuant to ASC 815, these instruments were not considered to be solely indexed to the Company’s own stock
and were not afforded equity treatment.

The
following table summarizes activity in the Company’s derivative liability during the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016:

12-31-2015 Balance

$

1,197,952

Creation

2,813,219

Settlement

(112,005

)

Change in Value

1,633,732

12-31-2016 Balance

$

5,532,898

12-31-2016 Balance

$

5,532,898

Creation

1,188,275

Reclassification to Equity

(163,674

)

Change in Value and Extinguishment of Debt

(5,856,152

)

12-31-2017 Balance

$

701,347

The
Company classifies the fair value of these derivative liabilities under level 3 of the fair value hierarchy of financial instruments.
The fair value of the derivative liability was calculated using a Black Scholes model. The Company’s stock price and estimates
of volatility are the most sensitive inputs in validation of assets and liabilities at fair value. The liabilities were measured
using the following assumptions:

Term

0.5 years -7.0 years

Dividend Yield

0

%

Risk-free rate

1.20% - 1.77

%

Volatility

60

%

8.
GOING CONCERN

The
Company’s financial statements are prepared using the generally accepted accounting principles applicable to a going concern,
which contemplates the realization of assets and satisfaction of liabilities in the normal course of business. The Company has
historically incurred net losses and as of December 31, 2017 had an accumulated deficit totaling $13.1 million. During the years
ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, the Company utilized an aggregate of $1.35 Million of cash in operating activities and incurred
an aggregate net loss of $3.9 million. The continuing losses have adversely affected the liquidity of the Company.

In
view of the matters described in the preceding paragraph, recoverability of a major portion of the recorded asset amounts shown
in the accompanying balance sheet is dependent upon continued operations of the Company, which in turn is dependent upon the Company’s
ability to raise additional capital, obtain financing and to succeed in its future operations. The financial statements do not
include any adjustments relating to the recoverability and classification of recorded asset amounts or amounts and classification
of liabilities that might be necessary as a result of the Company’s going concern uncertainty.

Management’s
plan regarding this matter is to, amongst other things, seek additional equity financing by selling our equity securities, obtaining
funds through the issuance of debt, and continue seeking approval from the FDA to bring to market our real-time imaging platform.
We cannot assure you that funds from these sources will be available when needed or, if available, will be on terms favorable
to us or to our stockholders. If we raise additional funds or settle liabilities by issuing equity securities, the percentage
ownership of our stockholders will be reduced, stockholders may experience additional dilution or such equity securities may provide
for rights, preferences or privileges senior to those of the holders of our common stock. Our ability to execute our business
plan and continue as a going concern may be adversely affected if we are unable to raise additional capital or operate profitably.

The
Company anticipates that further equity/debt financings will be necessary to continue to fund operations in the future and there
is no guarantee that such financings will be available or, if available, on acceptable terms.

9.
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Leases

The
Company entered into a facility lease agreement effective June 1, 2015 for three years with an option to extend for a 24 month
period effective on June 1, 2018.

Future
annual minimum lease commitments, excluding property taxes and insurance, on this lease are as follows:

In
2009, the Company was notified by the Internal Revenue Service that additional payroll taxes, interest, and penalty charges were
still owed. After researching, it is believed that the Internal Revenue Service double booked the original payments made and released
the lien in error. Settlement was reached and the Company is currently paying $2,578 per month on a total liability of $16,831
as of December 31, 2017, including interest and penalties, with a potential balloon payment in one year subject to re-negotiation
after one year with the IRS.

On
January 30, 2017 the Company entered into a new Agreement. Under the terms of the Agreement, the Company has agreed to pay Greenberg
$1,117,574 plus any interest that has accrued at the rate of 6.0% per annum, as follows: (i) $100,000 on or before December 31,
2017 (which as of April 17, 2018 has not been paid); (ii) $150,000 on or before December 31, 2018 (iii) 4.0% of the first $2.5
million of gross proceeds of any private or public offering by the company (an “Offering”); (iv) 2.0% of the next
$2.5 million of gross proceeds from such Offerings; (v) 4.0% of any gross proceeds thereafter from such Offerings; and (vi) the
remaining balance on or before December 31, 2019.

In
addition, Greenberg has the option to convert up to $150,000 of the balance into a warrant that would convert on terms that are
equal to (or, in certain cases, better than) the terms offered in subsequent rounds of financing.

Bankruptcy
Closure

On
January 31, 2017, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Central District of California, Neil Bason, granted the Company’s
unopposed motion for entry of final decree and also granted approval of the two stipulations regarding payment of court-approved
fees. As a result, the Imaging3 Chapter 11 proceeding is now closed. The Company is no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the
Bankruptcy Court, and the case cannot be converted to a Chapter 7 proceeding, except that the Judge’s order in its final
paragraph stated that “Notwithstanding the foregoing [order closing the bankruptcy case pursuant to 11 United States Code
Section 350(a)] the bankruptcy case may be reopened on motion as set forth in the Greenberg, Glusker Fee Agreement and/or the
Mentor Fee Agreement and thus the court retains jurisdiction for those purposes and as otherwise provided by law or as contemplated
by the prior orders and proceedings of this court”. Thus, technically, the case could possibly be reopened by either of
those aforementioned creditors. As of the date of filing of this report, the Company is in default of certain terms of the Greenberg,
Glusker and Mentor agreements, however, the Company maintains open and cordial relations with Greenberg, Glusker and Mentor.

Pending
Litigation

On
September 13, 2017 Alpha Capital Anstalt and Brio Capital Master Fund, LTD, two minority members of a group of investors in the
Company, filed a lawsuit seeking damages and injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, claiming that the Company breached certain Note and Warrant agreements among the parties to the action. The holders
of the majority of the investment involved in the above lawsuit chose not to join in the lawsuit. On November 21, 2017, the Court
denied the Plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief against the Company. As a result the case essentially becomes an action
for money damages against the Company, which the Company believes to be without merit and will vigorously defend.

10. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

In January of 2017, the Company issued 1,500,000 shares valued at $45,000 to Emilio
Aguilera, the son of the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, for services rendered.

11.
SUBSEQUENT EVENTS

On
March 16, 2018, the Company effected a reverse split of all the outstanding shares of common stock at a ratio of 1 for 20.

Effective
March 5, 2018, Imaging3, Inc. (the “Company”) completed a change of domicile (the “Reincorporation”) to
Delaware from California by means of a merger of Imaging3 Inc., a California corporation (“IGNG-CA”) with and into
the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Imaging3, Inc., a Delaware corporation (“IGNG-DE”). The merger agreement
was entered into on September 22, 2017 and was previously disclosed and attached as an appendix to the Company’s Definitive
Proxy Statement on Form 14A filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on October 3, 2017 (the “Proxy Statement”).
The certificate of merger was accepted by the State of Delaware on March 5, 2018. The Reincorporation was approved by a majority
of the Company’s stockholders at a special meeting of stockholders on November 16, 2017.

During
the first quarter ending March 31, 2018, the Company issued 16,374,615 shares of common stock, 1,900,000 shares related to services
valued at $413,000. 474,615 shares were issued for cash proceeds of $70,000, and 14,000,000 shares related to Stock-based compensation.

ITEM
9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE.

ITEM
9A. CONTROL AND PROCEDURES

Evaluation
of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

We
carried out an evaluation, under the supervision and with the participation of our management, including our principal executive
officer and principal financial officer, of the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)). Based upon that evaluation, our principal executive officer and principal financial officer
concluded that, as of the end of the period covered in this report, our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective
to ensure that information required to be disclosed in reports filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, is
recorded, processed, summarized and reported within the required time periods and is accumulated and communicated to our management,
including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding
required disclosure.

Our
management, including our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, does not expect that our disclosure controls
and procedures or our internal controls will prevent all error or fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated,
can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of
a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints and the benefits of controls must be considered relative
to their costs. Due to the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of controls can provide absolute assurance
that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, have been detected. To address the material weaknesses, we performed additional
analysis and other post-closing procedures in an effort to ensure our financial statements included in this annual report have
been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Accordingly, management believes that the financial
statements included in this report fairly present in all material respects our financial condition, results of operations and
cash flows for the periods presented.

Management’s
Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting

Our
management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as defined in Rule
13a-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Our management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control
over financial reporting as of December 31, 2017. In making this assessment, our management used the criteria set forth by the
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (“COSO”) in Internal Control-Integrated (2013Framework).
A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over financial reporting, such that
there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of our annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented
or detected on a timely basis. We have identified the following material weaknesses:

1.
As of December 31, 2017, we did not maintain effective controls over financial statement disclosure. Specifically, controls were
not designed and in place to ensure that all disclosures required were originally addressed in our financial statements. Accordingly,
management has determined that this control deficiency constitutes a material weakness.

2.
As of December 31, 2017 we did not maintain adequate segregation of duties. Accordingly, management has determined that this control
deficiently constitutes a material weakness.

Because
of these material weaknesses, management has concluded that we did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting
as of December 31, 2017, based on the criteria established in “Internal Control-Integrated Framework” issued by the
COSO.

Independent
Registered Accountant’s Internal Control Attestation

This
annual report does not include an attestation report of our public accounting firm regarding our internal control over financial
reporting.

Changes
in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

There
have been no changes in our internal control over financial reporting through the date of this report or during the quarter ended
December 31, 2017, that materially affected, or are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial
reporting.

The
following table lists our executive officers and directors as of December 31, 2017:

Name

Age

Position

John
Hollister

57

CEO
and Chairman

Dane
Medley

59

President
and Principle Executive, Director

Xavier
Aguilera

69

Executive
Vice President, CFO, Corp Secretary, Director

Dr.
Art Lu

70

Director

Richard
Klug

62

Director

John
Hollister joined Imaging3 on December 19, 2017 to serve as the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board. Mr.
Hollister brings nearly 30 years of healthcare leadership to Imaging3. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Hollister served as the
Chief Executive Officer of NuLife Sciences, a publicly traded (OTCQB; NULF) company (2016-2017) developing a proprietary process
for transplant and wound care. Prior to NULF(2014-2015), he served as the first Chief Executive Officer and Director of NEMUS
Bioscience (OTCQB: NMUS), a publicly traded life-sciences company developing a variety molecules for multiple indications. He
helped establish the company and served in this capacity during the licensing of the core technologies, the process of going public
and the first year of raising necessary capital. From 2011-2013, Mr. Hollister served as the Executive Vice President, Marketing
for Tethys Bioscience, a diagnostic company in the field of personalized medicine. Between 2009 and 2011, he was an independent
healthcare consultant working with a variety of private, early stage healthcare companies. From 2006 and 2009, Mr. Hollister served
as the Chief Executive Officer and Director of EEG Spectrum, a medical device company. Mr. Hollister was promoted to Chairman
after the first year working with the company. Prior to EEG Spectrum, Mr Hollister spent 5 years at AMGEN in product marketing
and as the Global Commercial Leader in Oncology. Prior to AMGEN, he spent three years as the Director of Marketing at Aviron,
an early stage vaccine company and he started his career spending 8 years (1988-2006) at SmithKline Beecham in a variety of sales
and marketing positions. Mr. Hollister received his BA in Economics at Stanford University and his MBA at the Drucker Graduate
Management Center at the Claremont Graduate University. He also serves as the Secretary of the Board of the Brain and Behavior
Research Foundation, the largest donor supported charity focused on research of the brain.

Dane
Medley served as the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company since October 2012. With the addition of John
Hollister to the Executive Team, Mr. Medley assumed the title of President and Principle Executive Officer. Prior to joining the
Company, Mr. Medley was the Senior Vice President of Service and Operations at Xerox Corporation (2008-2012), the Regional Operations
Specialist at Sharp Electronics Corporation (2002-2007), a Service Manager at Lewan & Associates, Inc. (1986 to 2001), and
served in the United States Air Force from 1981 to 1985.

Xavier
Aguilera has been our Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer, and Corporate Secretary since June 1999 and a
director since 2005. Mr. Aguilera’s responsibilities include managing our finances, accounting, taxes, credit facilities
and interfacing and developing new relationships with banks and other financial institutions. Prior to working for Imaging3, Mr.
Aguilera was self-employed as a consultant for Xavier Aguilera & Associates from 1997 to 1999.

Dr.
Arthur Lu Dr. Arthur Lu has been a director of the Company since December 1, 2015. Since 1987, Dr. Lu has worked in private
practice as an ophthalmologist. He worked as an ophthalmologist at Magnolia Eye Care, Medical Center, Inc. from 1987 to 2005.
Dr. Lu was an assistant clinical professor at the University of California, San Diego from 1987 to 1997. He is a member of the
American Academy of Ophthalmology, California Medical Association, and Orange County Medical Association. Dr. Lu became a fellow
of the American Board of Ophthalmology in 1989, a diplomat of the American Board of Ophthalmology in 1988, a licensed physician
and surgeon in California in 1985, and a diplomat of the National Board of Medical Examiners in 1984. Dr. Lu received his Doctor
of Medicine from the University of California, Irvine in 1983, his Master of Science degree in electrical engineering from the
University of Southern California in 1978, his Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering from California State University
at Los Angeles in 1976, and his Bachelor of Science degree in biochemistry from California State University at Los Angeles in
1974.

Richard
J. Klug has been a director of the Company since October 2014. Since 1997, Mr. Klug has served as a Manager and Senior
Regional Manager for Sharp Electronics Corp. in Mahwah, New Jersey, currently responsible for technical and organizational support
of all Sharp products in a six state region. His skills and experience include budget and productivity responsibility, technical
operations management, and general management and administration of dealer networks for manufacturers and resellers. Mr. Klug
served as the Director of Retail Services for Gestetner Corporation in Greenwich, Connecticut (1996-1997), an independent management
consultant from 1994 to 1995, and a National Manager, Product Support for Sharp Electronics Corp. in Mahwah, New Jersey (1979
to 1994). Mr. Klug’s education and training include the following:

Limitation
of Liability and Indemnification of Officers and Directors

Under
the California Corporation Code, our directors will have no personal liability to us or our stockholders for monetary damages
incurred as the result of the breach or alleged breach by a director of his “duty of care.” This provision does not
apply to the directors’ (i) acts or omissions that involve intentional misconduct or a knowing and culpable violation of
law, (ii) acts or omissions that a director believes to be contrary to the best interests of the corporation or its shareholders
or that involve the absence of good faith on the part of the director, (iii) approval of any transaction from which a director
derives an improper personal benefit, (iv) acts or omissions that show a reckless disregard for the director’s duty to the
corporation or its shareholders in circumstances in which the director was aware, or should have been aware, in the ordinary course
of performing a director’s duties, of a risk of serious injury to the corporation or its shareholders, (v) acts or omissions
that constituted an unexcused pattern of inattention that amounts to an abdication of the director’s duty to the corporation
or its shareholders, or (vi) approval of an unlawful dividend, distribution, stock repurchase or redemption. This provision would
generally absolve directors of personal liability for negligence in the performance of duties, including gross negligence.

The
California Corporations Code grants corporations the right to indemnify their directors, officers, employees and agents in accordance
with applicable law. Our bylaws provide for indemnification of such persons to the full extent allowable under applicable law.
These provisions will not alter the liability of the directors under federal securities laws.

We
intend to enter into agreements to indemnify our directors and officers, in addition to the indemnification provided for in our
bylaws. These agreements, among other things, indemnify our directors and officers for certain expenses (including attorneys’
fees), judgments, fines, and settlement amounts incurred by any such person in any action or proceeding, including any action
by or in the right of Imaging3, arising out of such person’s services as a director or officer of Imgagin3, any subsidiary
of Imaging3 or any other company or enterprise to which the person provides services at our request. We believe that these provisions
and agreements are necessary to attract and retain qualified directors and officers.

Insofar
as indemnification for liabilities arising under the Securities Act may be permitted to directors, officers or persons controlling
us pursuant to the foregoing provisions, we have been informed that in the opinion of the Securities and Exchange Commission,
such indemnification is against public policy as expressed in the Securities Act and is therefore unenforceable.

Our
board of directors has appointed an audit committee. The board of directors has adopted a written charter of the audit committee.
The audit committee is authorized by the board of directors to review our annual financial statements prior to publication, and
to review the work of, and approve non-audit services performed by, our independent accountants. The audit committee will make
annual recommendations to the board for the appointment of independent public accountants for the ensuing year. The audit committee
will also review the effectiveness of the financial and accounting functions and our organization, operations and management.
The audit committee was formed on August 31, 2003. The audit committee held two meetings during fiscal year ended December 31,
2017.

Our
board of directors does not have a compensation committee so all decisions with respect to management compensation are made by
the whole board. Our board of directors does not have a nominating committee. Therefore, the selection of persons or election
to the board of directors was neither independently made nor negotiated at arm’s length.

Report
of the Audit Committee

Our
audit committee has reviewed and discussed our audited financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 with senior
management. The audit committee has reviewed and discussed with management our audited financial statements. The audit committee
has also discussed with Rose, Snyder and Jacobs LLP (“RSJ”), our independent auditors, the matters required to be
discussed by the statement on Auditing Standards No. 16 (Communication with Audit Committees) and received the written disclosures
and the letter from RSJ required by Independence Standards Board Standard No. 1 (Independence Discussion with Audit Committees).
The audit committee has discussed with RSJ the independence of RSJ as our auditors. Finally, the audit committee has considered
whether the independent auditor’s provision of non-audit services to us is compatible with the auditors’ independence.
Based on the foregoing, our audit committee has recommended to the board of directors that our audited financial statements be
included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2016 for filing with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission. Our audit committee did not submit a formal report regarding its findings.

AUDIT
COMMITTEE

Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary set forth in any of our previous or future filings under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, that might incorporate this report in future filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, in whole or in part, the foregoing report shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any such filing.

Code
of Conduct

We
have adopted a code of conduct that applies to all of its directors, officers and employees. The text of the code of conduct has
been posted on our Internet website and can be viewed at www.imaging3.com. Any waiver of the provisions of the code of conduct
for executive officers and directors may be made only by our audit committee or the full board of directors and, in the case of
a waiver for members of the audit committee, by the board of directors. Any such waivers will be promptly disclosed to our shareholders.

Compliance
with Section 16(A) of Exchange Act

Our
affiliates who are members of our management voluntarily comply with Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
even though we do not have securities registered under Section 12 of Exchange Act. Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires
a registrant’s officers and directors, and certain persons who own more than 10% of a registered class of a registrant’s
equity securities (collectively, “Reporting Persons”), to file reports of ownership and changes in ownership (“Section
16 Reports”) with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Reporting Persons are required by the SEC to furnish the registrant
with copies of all Section 16 Reports they file.

Based
solely on our review of the copies of such Section 16 Reports received by us, or written representations received from certain
Reporting Persons, all Section 16(a) filing requirements that would be applicable to our Reporting Persons (as our securities
are registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act) during and with respect to the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 have been
met on a timely basis.

The
following Compensation Discussion and Analysis describes the material elements of compensation for our executive officers identified
in the Summary Compensation Table (“Named Executive Officers”), and executive officers that we may hire in the future.
As more fully described below, our board of directors makes all decisions for the total compensation of our executive officers,
including the Named Executive Officers. We do not have a compensation committee, so all decisions with respect to management compensation
are made by the whole board.

Compensation
Program Objectives and Rewards

Our
compensation philosophy is based on the premise of attracting, retaining, and motivating exceptional leaders, setting high goals,
working toward the common objectives of meeting the expectations of customers and stockholders, and rewarding outstanding performance.
Following this philosophy, in determining executive compensation, we consider all relevant factors, such as the competition for
talent, our desire to link pay with performance in the future, the use of equity to align executive interests with those of our
stockholders, individual contributions, teamwork and performance, and each executive’s total compensation package. We strive
to accomplish these objectives by compensating all executives with total compensation packages consisting of a combination of
competitive base salary and, once we grow more and increase our staff, incentive compensation. Because of our small size and staff
to date, we have not yet adopted a management equity incentive plan, nor have we yet used equity incentives as part of our management
compensation policy.

While
we have not hired at the executive level significantly since inception because our business has not grown sufficiently to justify
increasing staff, we expect to grow and hire in the future. Our Named Executive Officers have been with us for many years and
their compensation has basically been static, based primarily on levels at which we can afford to retain them, and their responsibilities
and individual contributions. To date, we have not applied a formal compensation program to determine the compensation of the
Named Executives. In the future, as we and our management team expand, our board of directors expects to add independent members,
form a compensation committee comprised of independent directors, adopt a management equity incentive plan and apply the compensation
philosophy and policies described in this section of the Form 10-K.

The
primary purpose of the compensation and benefits described below is to attract, retain and motivate highly talented individuals
when we do hire, who will engage in the behaviors necessary to enable us to succeed in our mission while upholding our values
in a highly competitive marketplace. Different elements are designed to engender different behaviors, and the actual incentive
amounts which may be awarded to each Named Executive Officer are subject to the annual review of the board of directors. The following
is a brief description of the key elements of our planned executive compensation structure.

Base
salary and benefits are designed to attract and retain employees over time. Incentive compensation awards are designed to focus
employees on the business objectives for a particular year. Equity incentive awards, such as stock options and non-vested stock,
focus executives’ efforts on the behaviors within the recipients’ control that they believe are designed to ensure
our long-term success as reflected in increases to our stock prices over a period of several years, growth in our profitability
and other elements. Severance and change in control plans are designed to facilitate a company’s ability to attract and
retain executives as it competes for talented employees in a marketplace where such protections are commonly offered. We currently
have not given separation benefits to any of our Name Executive Officers.

The
Elements of Imaging3’s Compensation Program

Base
Salary

Executive
officer base salaries are based on job responsibilities and individual contribution. The board reviews the base salaries of our
executive officers, including our Named Executive Officers, considering factors such as corporate progress toward achieving objectives
(without reference to any specific performance-related targets) and individual performance experience and expertise. None of our
Named Executive Officers have employment agreements with us. Additional factors reviewed by the board of directors in determining
appropriate base salary levels and raise’s include subjective factors related to corporate and individual performance. For
the year ended December 31, 2017, all executive officer base salary decisions were approved by the board of directors.

The
Named Executives have not been paid bonuses and our board of directors has not yet established a formal compensation policy for
the determination of bonuses. If our revenue grows and bonuses become affordable and justifiable, we expect to use the following
parameters in justifying and quantifying bonuses for our Named Executive Officers and other officers of Imaging3: (1) the growth
in our revenue, (2) the growth in our earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, as adjusted (“EBITDA”),
and (3) our stock price. The board has not adopted specific performance goals and target bonus amounts for any of its fiscal years,
but may do so in the future. It is anticipated that such an incentive compensation awards program may commence during the year
2017.

Equity
Incentive Awards

As
stated previously, in the future we plan to adopt a formal management equity incentive plan pursuant to which we plan to grant
stock options and make restricted stock awards to members of management, which would not be assignable during the executive’s
life, except for certain gifts to family members or trusts that benefit family members. These equity incentive awards, we believe,
would motivate our employees to work to improve our business and stock price performance, thereby further linking the interests
of our senior management and our stockholders. The board will consider several factors in determining whether awards are granted
to an executive officer, including those previously described, as well as the executive’s position, his or her performance
and responsibilities, and the amount of options or other awards, if any, currently held by the officer and their vesting schedule.
Our policy will prohibit backdating options or granting them retroactively.

Benefits
and Prerequisites

At
this stage of our business we have limited benefits and no prerequisites for our employees other than health insurance and vacation
benefits that are generally comparable to those offered by other small private and public companies or as may be required by applicable
state employment laws. We do not have a 401(k) Plan or any other retirement plan for our Named Executive Officers. We may adopt
these plans and confer other fringe benefits for our executive officers in the future if our business grows sufficiently to enable
us to afford them.

Executive
Compensation

The
following table summarizes compensation paid or accrued by us for the years ended December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 for
services rendered in all capacities, by our chief executive officer and our other most highly compensated executive officers during
the fiscal years ended December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016.

John
Hollister was appointed as CEO on December 19, 2017, therefore, he did not receive any compensation.

Employment
Agreements

We
have entered into five-year employment agreements with our chief executive officer and our chief financial officer, which commenced
in January 2017. We may enter into new employment agreements with them in the future.

Employee
Benefit Plans

We
have not yet, but may in the future, establish a management stock option plan pursuant to which stock options may be authorized
and granted to the executive officers, directors, employees and key consultants of Imaging3. In the event we establish the stock
option plan, we expect to authorize approximately 36,576,614 shares or more for future issuance.

Director
Compensation

None
of our directors received any compensation for their respective services rendered to us as directors during the year ended December
31, 2017.

The
following table sets forth the names of our executive officers and directors and all persons known by us to beneficially own 5%
or more of the issued and outstanding common stock of Imaging3 at December 31, 2017. Beneficial ownership is determined in accordance
with the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission. In computing the number of shares beneficially owned by a person and
the percentage of ownership of that person, shares of common stock subject to options held by that person that are currently exercisable
or become exercisable within 60 days of December 31, 2017 are deemed outstanding even if they have not actually been exercised.
Those shares, however, are not deemed outstanding for the purpose of computing the percentage ownership of any other person. The
percentage ownership of each beneficial owner is based on 8,475,120 outstanding shares of common stock. Except as otherwise listed
below, the address of each person is c/o Imaging3, Inc., 3022 North Hollywood Way, Burbank, California 91505. Except as indicated,
each person listed below has sole voting and investment power with respect to the shares set forth opposite such person’s
name.

Except
as pursuant to applicable community property laws, the persons named in the table have sole voting and investment power with
respect to all shares of common stock beneficially owned. The total number of issued and outstanding shares and the total
number of shares owned by each person does not include unexercised warrants and stock options, and is calculated as of December
31, 2017.

Presently
and since June 20, 2015, Rose, Snyder and Jacobs LLP (“RSJ”) has been and is our principal auditing firm.

Each
year the retention of the independent auditor to audit our financial statements, including the associated fee, is approved by
the board of directors before the filing of the previous year’s Annual Report on Form 10-K.

2017

2016

Audit
Fees(1)

$

88,000

$

84,400

Audit
Related Fees

-0-

8,500

All
Other Fees(2)

-0-

-0-

$

88,000

$

92,900

(1)

Audit
Fees consist of fees for the audit of our financial statements and review of the financial statements included in our quarterly
reports. With respect to audit related fees, $8,500 was paid to M&K CPAS, PLLC (our prior principal auditing firm) during
the year ended December 31, 2016.

(2)

Tax
fees consist of fees for the preparation of original federal and state income tax returns and fees for miscellaneous tax consulting
services.

Pre-Approval
Policies and Procedures of Audit and Non-Audit Services of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

The
audit committee’s policy is to pre-approve, typically at the beginning of our fiscal year, all audit and non-audit services,
other than de minimis non-audit services, to be provided by an independent registered public accounting firm. These services may
include, among others, audit services, audit-related services, tax services and other services and such services are generally
subject to a specific budget. The independent registered public accounting firm and management are required to periodically report
to the full board of directors regarding the extent of services provided by the independent registered public accounting firm
in accordance with this pre-approval, and the fees for the services performed to date. As part of the board’s review, the
board will evaluate other known potential engagements of the independent auditor, including the scope of work proposed to be performed
and the proposed fees, and approve or reject each service, taking into account whether the services are permissible under applicable
law and the possible impact of each non-audit service on the independent auditor’s independence from management. At audit
committee meetings throughout the year, the auditor and management may present subsequent services for approval. Typically, these
would be services such as due diligence for an acquisition, that would not have been known at the beginning of the year.

The
audit committee has considered the provision of non-audit services provided by our independent registered public accounting firm
to be compatible with maintaining their independence. The audit committee will continue to approve all audit and permissible non-audit
services provided by our independent registered public accounting firm.

Pursuant
to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, the Registrant has duly caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

IMAGING3,
INC.

Dated:
April 17, 2018

By:

/s/
John Hollister

John
Hollister

CEO

Pursuant
to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, this report has been signed below by the following persons
on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

Site Links

Based on public records. Inadvertent errors are possible. Getfilings.com does not guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of any information on this site. Use at your own risk.
This website is not associated with the SEC.